Since the recent PDE TV programme (27th February) comments on the content have been presented from all sides in the UK dog press and on-line - all except mine that is, and as one of the participants in the Boxer Juvenile Kidney Disease section of the film, and as I have since been the subject of some outrageous charges, I think it appropriate that I give 'my side'. Unfortunately, with Crufts just about to start, I can't give my response in the same media this week and maybe not for several weeks, so here I offer my story as it actually happened. 

I have for years monitored cases of kidney failure in UK Boxers and have seen no indication of it being inherited.  Therefore, when the subject was raised at a Breed Council Health Committee meeting a few years ago I expressed little interest, but another member of the committee was eager to investigate.  However, in late September 2010 I received a call from a vet seeking help for a client, Sharon McCurdy, who had a number of cases and had failed to get any help from her previous vet. I was initially rather sceptical and took the news rather lightly, but a subsequent letter threatening legal action, received before I had any idea what was going on, did get my attention.

Examination of Sharon McCurdy's and further cases that quickly came to light revealed an extraordinary picture of litters with one or more kidney deaths occurring with very close inbreeding (father x daughter, half-brother x half-sister, father x g'daughter etc focussing on one dog).  But as more cases were found some revealed close inbreeding on dogs that were further back in the first pedigrees.  There was therefore clear evidence of an inheritance that nobody could miss.  The close inbreeding suggested a recessive gene inheritance.  But there were also a few cases that derived from total outcrosses.  This meant that either that they had a different causal basis (poisons etc) or that the gene responsible was more widely spread than yet recognised.

Professor Bell, a specialist in Internal Medicine at Glasgow University Veterinary School agreed to help devise a questionaire for the vets to indicate the diagnostic evidence.  Retrospectively this was achieved for almost all cases.  The cause of these deaths can therefore be ascribed to a familial juvenile kidney disease (JKD).  One of these familial cases died in Sweden and went to a full post mortem to get the more the specific diagnosis of familial kidney dysplasia.

I reported the findings in Boxer Breed Notes as the cases emerged and, on request, subsequently (February 2011), exhibited the pedigrees to the Breed Council Executive and a new Health Committee.  I presented only my general conclusions and left interpretation to those present to decide for themselves.  There were no questions on the pedigrees as I recall, only questions on the diagnoses.  Because of the perceived magnitude of the problem, I offered only one recommendation for breeders - 'to try and avoid inbreeding'.  Judging from a subsequent report in the dog press by the new Health Committee, everything appeared to be accepted, including my aim to initiate a study to find the responsible gene.

I was lucky enough to find an interested molecular geneticist, Michel Georges from Belgium, who was using a new gene scanning method that seemed appropriate for our situation.  Week after week thereafter I therefore put requests in the dog press for blood samples.  I needed samples from both affected cases and parents, but the response for each was very poor.  People seemed frightened.  Two owners actually told me that the breeder had told them not to cooperate.  However, I managed with great difficulty to get 5 samples from affected cases and 6 from parents.  All offers of samples were accepted and in fact I am still looking for more.  I also needed unrelated controls and managed to get enough contributions from concerned breeders to be able to select ones I hoped would be suitable for the gene screen. Unfortunately, however, the search was not successful.  Other investigations elsewhere in the world with other Boxers have likewise failed.

Coming now to the film, when Jemima Harrison informed me that she had been besieged by Boxer breeders to take up the JKD problem and asked me if I would contribute and explain the genetics, I of course agreed.  I could not possibly stand back and let other brave souls fight alone.  I therefore told her the story much as above, but eventually had to produce the evidence - the pedigrees - and I know these were then carefully analysed by two other geneticists.  The film makers also sought out other factual information on events which made my own efforts on the genetics seem puny.  Believe me, there is so much more information, but only a small part was given in the 10 minute slot in the 1 hour programme, and I know that every word was scrutinised by a team of lawyers.

I do want to make it clear that what I actually said can be literally 'seen' on the film. The remainder came from the narrator, not me.  It was selective, excluding much, but still accurate in content.  I was saddened that my comment on the exceptional past record of Boxer breeders on health matters was not given.  And I was annoyed that the narrator made it seem that the evidence that JKD was inherited was not definitive just because the gene had not been found (a lawyer issue, I'm told).  But let's be clear.  One needs breeding evidence before one searches for a gene, not the other way around.  The evidence that JKD is inherited is absolutely firm, and two other geneticists agree.

Where do we go from here?  Further research upon JKD is needed but I hope it can be seen that this would be impossible at present.  Instead we are left with the one option of separately trying again to find the gene.  Here, I thought we might still get stuck because what research group would be willing to invest much time and a huge funding to look for a gene when there is not total positive breeder support.  However, I was delighted to receive a message after the film from Swedish canine geneticist, Ake Hedhammar, who works with American/Swedish molecular guru, Kerstin Lindblad-Toh on JKD in Continental and American Boxers.  He suggested we collaborate with him in his effort to find the gene for JKD in Boxers internationally.  This could be the way to go, but would we get full support from owners of cases and parents a second time around?  I actually had 5 possible JKD cases reported in the three days following PDE2 with blood samples promised, which is quite a change.  Maybe the film has actually rescued the breed.

Postscript:  I have just had another offer of help to find the gene, this time from Professor Harvey of University College London.  His interests are medical, but he has taken an interest in disease genes in dogs that may have relevance for human disease.  This route seems a very promising one as collaboration with human researchers has worked very well for me with Boxer cardiomyopathy as I hope will soon be seen.  So, if the Boxer breed in the UK wants to get itself together, face the problem, and do something, there could be a way forward.

If there was a LIKE button i would definatley LIKE this.

Maybe the film has actually rescued the breed.

After everything negative that has been said about PDE and JH, this statement must surely make it all worthwhile? 

Many thanks for clarifying your position.

A very interesting and clarifying post

I think this is amazing. I think it should be a cause for major celebration and a huge step forward for the boxer breed that an opportunity to discover and hopefully eliminate this dreadul and sad disease has been facilitated by PDE 3 years on.  Bruce Cattanach is clearly excited about the opportunities that have opened up as a result of it.

It is clear from the underwhelming responses that no-one else feels the same way, or that they cannot bring themselves to say anything good about 'her' or PDE. If it were a criticism that was being levelled at the programme or JH I imagine there would be pages of juicy responses by now. What a shame, I thought it was all about the dogs.

>It is clear from the underwhelming responses that no-one else feels the same way

Why would you get that impression? If I posted "Dogs need some daily exercise" I wouldn't expect lots of confirmatory posts - I think everyone would agree. If I posted "Dogs don't need any exercise at all" I'd expect pages and pages of disagreement and explanations as to why that opinion should be corrected! Every response about the statement has been positive - it shows that everyone agrees!

>I was saddened that my comment on the exceptional past record of Boxer breeders on health matters was not given.

BC would have liked a little more balance, and to give credit where it's due.

JG
But he didn't post 'Dogs need some daily exercise'. One of the things he actually said was 'the programme may have saved the breed'! A bit different. Personally I think it's a bit of a 'wow' moment, so I was surprised to see such minimal response. 2 or 3 posts that could not have been any lower key if they had tried? (except for the first) Nobody celebrates a such breakthrough in dog health research anymore? No I don't buy it.

I still have the same impression, reinforced by the fact that you have chosen to comment upon the only negative remark you could find in his lengthy post. 

> It is clear from the underwhelming responses that no-one else feels the same way

Not at all.  However this isn't a dialogue with BC or even a discussion point as such; it's simply a copy of a statement written by BC but cut and pasted by Admin.  I just assumed it was for reading rather than posting about... :)

Edited to add:  Incidentally where is this cut and pasted from?  I'd guess it was written for some other medium than us and I'd be interested to know where it will be published as it does deserve a much wider audience

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that we were asked to post the statement on behalf of Bruce Cattanach.

"Unfortunately, with Crufts just about to start, I can't give my response in the same media this week and maybe not for several weeks, so here I offer my story as it actually happened."

To my knowledge Champdogs is the only place this statement appears. We have also invited Bruce to join the forum should he feel the need to respond to any comments, so feel free to comment.

>I still have the same impression, reinforced by the fact that you have chosen to comment upon the only negative remark you could find in his lengthy post.

You've lost me - I was pointing out how BC's excellent article/comment wasn't totally in favour of the programme, not that I wasn't in favour of the article.

I've long been an admirer of BC's work and am looking forward to him contributing to CD. :-)

Me too, I have coresponded with him re query on genetics of colour/markings.

That was how I understood it Mark.  Anyway, my comment is to say that I am thrilled that as a result of the programme such promising opportunities for research into finding the gene/s responsible for this disease have opened up, and I hope for the sake of the breed it is fruitful.  If it is, it will lead to less tragedy for the breed, the individual dogs and owners.  Good luck with it, what an exciting development!

Also as similar issues occur in other breeds with I think only cockers having a DNA test, the process may help other breeds develop tests too.

Being in a numerically small breed the problem is that we never have enough cases of a problem to study, and develop DNA tests.  Our prcd-PRA test only came about because the available samples could be compared to the forms of PRA that had been identified in other breeds, and it turned out we had the same form.

We need to think globally and co-operatively between countries and breeds.

GSDs have a DNA test for JRD.

There you go I didn't know that. 

Our breed is monitoring for issues of FRD (familial renal disease) as some cases have cropped up sporadically, and the Dutch were very concerned and a study at Upsalla University done in Scandinavia was inconclusive and did not point to a significant issue.

Unfortunately there is no definitive diagnostic test other than biopsy of the kidney, which obviously your not going to do just as a screening test on healthy animals. 

Our club suggest we get kidney function tests, but my vet thinks this is a joke as it won't show abnormalities until the dog being screened is down to under 20% kidney function and obviously ill. 

He assured me if I bring in a fit and healthy animal for a blood test it will always show normal.

No sane person would consider breeding from an obviously already sick dog.

> To my knowledge Champdogs is the only place this statement appears.

It was posted this to the ShowBoxer List (USA based email forum) last Thursday.
Alot of the UK boxer folk are signed up to this so will have read it or had it forwarded on to them.

I think Sharon Mcurdy was sending a response in to the dog press but I haven't seen anything in there, possibly not put in by the papers due to Crufts deadlines etc